I will be supporting Rand Paul. I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials. The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians? It will be quite a balancing act.

As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP. I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support. In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.

I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush. But Rand Paul will be my first choice. He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.

I will be supporting Rand Paul. I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials. The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians? It will be quite a balancing act.

As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP. I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support. In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.

I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush. But Rand Paul will be my first choice. He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.

Not saying I'm superstitious or anything - but usually my first pick - the one I love the most that satisfies most of my desires - usually that candidate flames out early, and spectacularly. I'm not going to invest myself too early because I seem to be a natural jinx.

I will be supporting Rand Paul. I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials. The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians? It will be quite a balancing act.

As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP. I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support. In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.

I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush. But Rand Paul will be my first choice. He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.

The best thing Mitt could do for the country is to campaign for the Republican nominee by reminding people that voting for a president based on gender will be no more successful than voting for a president based on skin-tone...

Logged

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS. And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment. They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well. They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created. It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.

Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure. I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.

And I don't mean a weak foreign policy. I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick. OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.

What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS. And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment. They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well. They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created. It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.

Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure. I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.

And I don't mean a weak foreign policy. I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick. OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.

One has to demonstrate he will use the big stick, or have his bluff called. I too can relate well to a more limited interventionist policy, but I also know that such policies after WW1 ultimately led in part to WW2. We can of course hope that the void created is filled by counter-balancing forces. China, Russia and Islam are moving to fill any void we leave. Obama has helped create these conditions mainly because of his confusing moves on foreign policy.

I agree on the big stick policy linked to light treading, but our Western partners and our enemies and potential enemies must understand where we stand with respect to that stick. Interestingly, the Cold War was in retrospect a much more peaceful period.

I agree on the big stick policy linked to light treading, but our Western partners and our enemies and potential enemies must understand where we stand with respect to that stick. Interestingly, the Cold War was in retrospect a much more peaceful period.

So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.

So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.

And on that view Putin will eventually swallow most of Ukraine and the baltic countries, notwithstanding that the baltics are full NATO members. If your opponent's position is no war or total war, then your approach is a series of low-level conflicts to achieve your ends because no one particular event will be big enough to justify an all-out war, and so your opponent will do nothing as you slowly achieve your goals piecemeal.

What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS. And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment. They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well. They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created. It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.

Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure. I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.

And I don't mean a weak foreign policy. I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick. OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.

I'm open to the possibility that Rand Paul actually will 'carry a very, very big stick.' It's early in the game so I haven't investigated thoroughly, but do you have some info that supports that he will not be weak regarding threats to this nation (as his father is).

I'm also a little troubled by the term 'neo-con,' since it's been thrown around so carelessly for so long, and as a broad brush attack on anyone who doesn't agree with isolation, that it seems to have lost any meaning it ever had in the first place.

There are many gradations of degree among thoughtful conservatives, and I'm not sure that using a single generic word for ALL recent foreign policy is in any way meaningful.

Example: The enemy of my enemy is my friend was a long time US policy (including under Reagan), and it caused many problems, some severe, and doesn't fit under the "neo-con" appellation.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 01:36:21 PM by musiclady »

Logged

Character still matters. It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME. I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country. May God have mercy!

So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.

Even in the Cold War under the MAD concept, both superpowers used military forces almost like a chess game. Both Dresden and Hiroshima have been questioned over the years as to the necessity. Given the time of both bombings, the enemy on both fronts were no longer military threats. The bombings were intended to end the war, not win it. I'm not sure why that differs from the blitzkrieg over London. If we maintain alliances and friendships, we will utilize our military from time to time as part of a larger foreign policy. There is currently at the very least a cold war against the West.

I do agree whenever we use military power, it should be with specific goals and missions, recognizing that after the first troop crosses the line of departure, the best of planning requires adaptability.

So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.

Amen, Victor! Amen!

Logged

"It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news. With a pillow. Until it stops moving." - Iowahawk

I think the worst time to have a heart attack would be during a game of charades.

That ain't nuthin' to be proud of.A dark moment in the nation's history.

It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.

"Marching Through Georgia" is still a hated song down South...

Let's turn the tables a bit:Suppose it's Homeland Security forces ravaging through a conservative state today?

You gonna tout that, too?

Come now, Fish...

Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone.

Logged

"It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news. With a pillow. Until it stops moving." - Iowahawk

I think the worst time to have a heart attack would be during a game of charades.

DCPatriot wrote above:[[ Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone. ]]

And his point was well-taken.

Do you think that sometime yet to come in the nation's history, there could arise another attempt to "change the fundamental structure of government" when the ballot box no longer works?

If that were to happen, and if the government were to respond with a "a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone", do you believe that it would be a good thing?

DCPatriot wrote above:[[ Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone. ]]

And his point was well-taken.

Do you think that sometime yet to come in the nation's history, there could arise another attempt to "change the fundamental structure of government" when the ballot box no longer works?

If that were to happen, and if the government were to respond with a "a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone", do you believe that it would be a good thing?

I await your reply....

It depends on the circumstances. If the response were to put down a violent communist or Islamic insurgency in the USA I think I would want the cancer cut out completely. If its purpose was to curtail basic freedoms, obviously I'd probably count myself among the vanquished.

Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand LI, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

~~~~~~~~~~~

In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.

I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.

Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.

I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.